Are you following the latest twist in the O.J. Simpson book deal? It's kind of odd. A court has ruled that Simpson's rights in that If I Did It book must be auctioned off with the proceeds going to help pay down the $33.5 million judgment that the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown won against him. He's paid almost nothing on the amount which, with interest, is now more like $38 mill. The Goldman family, which adamantly opposed publication of the book when it was first announced, has now done a one-eighty and they want the book published.
I'm sure there are those who think the difference now is one of sheer greed, and I think that's unfair. Even if money is the primary reason for the change, the families are entitled to some compensation for all they've been through, and some bucks on a judgment that they won. But there's a big question here that's going unasked and unanswered. The other night on Larry King Live, Fred Goldman was asked what's changed and he answered as follows…
Well, I think what changed is very simply the fact that we know more about it now than we did then and we believe that there's perhaps good reason to see it back out in print. Everybody that's read it, my attorneys specifically, believe that it's tantamount to a confession.
And then King said that Judith Regan, who was involved in packaging the book, told him she believes it's the total truth. He then asked Goldman, "How do you react to that?" and Goldman replied…
Well, frankly, from the bits and pieces that I've heard about it, I would tend to agree. He never contradicted the timeline or any of the evidence in the criminal trial. If nothing else, he almost validated it all.
This was one of those moments that reminded me why I've pretty much given up watching Larry King. They happen often on that show. A guest says something that cries out for a follow-up query and King, because he does no research (not only does none but practically brags about it) doesn't ask the obvious question. In this case, it would have been something like…
Fred, all the reports from people who've read Simpson's account of the murders in his book say the same thing. They say the text talks of an accomplice named Charlie who was present when the killings were committed, who urged Simpson to stop and who may have disposed of the murder weapon and other evidence. Do you think there really was a Charlie? And if not, why do you agree that the book is the total truth and why would you then want it published?
…or words to that effect. I suspect Goldman would have said no, that's the one part he doesn't believe but he thinks the rest is a confession and that there's a value to having that portion in print. But it would have been nice if there'd been a real interviewer there to pose that question.